Ansere, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 19 October 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty at the Magistrates' Court to one offence of dangerous driving and one offence of possession of cannabis. The case was committed to the Crown Court for sentencing. On 30 July 2024, at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the Appellant was sentenced by Mr Recorder Barnett to nine months' imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence and disqualified from driving for three years and four and a half months. The disqualification was also to last until an extended re-test was passed, a requirement included in the court record but not pronounced in open court. The court rectified this omission by announcing it in open court subsequently. The Appellant appealed against the sentence, with leave granted by a single judge, on the sole ground that the sentence should have been suspended.

On 3 October 2023, the Appellant was driving a white Audi A3 with a male passenger in North London. A near collision occurred between her vehicle and a motorcycle ridden by a third party, Mr Perchlicki, but fault could not be determined. After a brief verbal exchange, the Appellant pursued Mr Perchlicki, during which she struck a cyclist, Ms Kelly, causing her injury. The Appellant did not stop at the scene. CCTV footage showed a substantial collision, making it inconceivable that the Appellant or her passenger were unaware of the incident. The pursuit involved dangerous driving, including weaving through traffic, driving in the wrong direction in a bus lane, and attempts to collide with the motorbike several times. The Appellant was found in possession of cannabis when stopped by police, though there was no suggestion she was under the influence during the incident.

The Appellant was 38 years old at sentencing and had a previous conviction for dangerous driving in 2017, for which she received a suspended sentence, disqualification, a curfew, and unpaid work requirements. The sentencing court was not provided with full details of that previous offence, which involved serious dangerous driving in a car park, driving at people and vehicles, causing significant damage, and risk of serious injury. The Appellant had a poor record of compliance with court orders related to that sentence, breaching unpaid work requirements on multiple occasions.

The pre-sentence report noted the Appellant's acceptance of culpability for the current offence, her remorse for the injury caused to the cyclist, and her health conditions including depression, anxiety, endometriosis, IBS, and asthma. Character references highlighted her recent engagement with a charity and disclosed a history of childhood abuse, though no medical or other supporting documentation was provided to the court.

The sentencing guideline placed the offence in category A1, with a starting point of 18 months' custody and a range of one to two years. The Recorder imposed a custodial sentence of nine months after discount for the guilty plea, which was not challenged on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial sentence imposed for dangerous driving should have been suspended.
2. Whether the sentencing court erred in its assessment of the factors necessitating immediate custody, including risk to the public, appropriate punishment, and the Appellant's history of compliance with court orders.
3. Whether the sentencing court failed to properly consider mitigating factors that could justify suspension of the custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The risk to the public was adequately addressed by the driving disqualification, as the risk arose only in relation to road rage while driving.
• The Appellant had complied with previous disqualifications and interim orders, undermining the assertion of a history of disobedience to court orders.
• The seriousness of the offending did not mandate immediate custody, and the Recorder failed to consider factors favoring suspension as set out in the sentencing guidelines.
• The Appellant had strong personal mitigation, including victimhood of child sexual abuse, mental health conditions, physical health issues, and her role as a single parent to an adult son.
• The custodial sentence would have a detrimental effect on the Appellant's adult son's wellbeing due to their close relationship.
• The Appellant was suitable for rehabilitation, having accepted culpability and shown remorse and insight.
• Reliance was placed on recent case law addressing prison overcrowding and the adverse impact of imprisonment on women, specifically R v Ali and R v Foster.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 25	Guidance on the current conditions of prison overcrowding and its impact on sentencing decisions.	The court took into account the overcrowding conditions in prison as a factor but concluded immediate custody was still appropriate given the seriousness of the offending.
R v Foster [2023] EWCA Crim 1196; [2024] 1 Cr App R(S) 29	Guidance relating to prison overcrowding and the adverse effects of imprisonment on women.	The court considered this guidance in the context of the Appellant's health and personal circumstances but found it did not outweigh the need for immediate custody.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing guideline factors sequentially. It acknowledged that the Appellant presented a risk to the public when driving but accepted that the extended driving disqualification would largely mitigate this risk. Nonetheless, the risk was not entirely negated, as compliance with disqualification orders is not guaranteed.

Regarding the necessity of immediate custody for appropriate punishment, the court emphasized the seriousness of the dangerous driving. The Appellant had persistently attempted to collide with the motorbike over a five-minute period, using her vehicle as a weapon. The risk of serious injury extended beyond the cyclist to the motorcyclist. The gravity was compounded by the Appellant's prior dangerous driving offence, which had resulted in a suspended sentence and conditions that she breached.

The court found that the Appellant had a history of poor compliance with court orders, including multiple breaches of unpaid work requirements, justifying weight toward immediate custody.

The court rejected the argument that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation sufficient to justify suspension. It found that the Appellant had attempted to minimise her culpability, did not fully accept responsibility, and lacked genuine remorse and insight, particularly regarding the motorcyclist's victimisation.

Personal mitigation based on health conditions was considered but deemed insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the offending, as these conditions could be managed in custody. The impact of immediate custody on the Appellant's adult son was regarded as minimal and not significant.

Although the court considered the current prison overcrowding and the adverse impact of imprisonment on women, as highlighted in the cited authorities, these factors did not outweigh the necessity for immediate custody given the facts and circumstances.

Overall, the court concluded that the sentencing judge was justified in imposing immediate custody, given the seriousness of the offence, the previous dangerous driving conviction, poor compliance with court orders, and the consequences for the injured cyclist.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Appellant's appeal against sentence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the custodial sentence of nine months' imprisonment and the driving disqualification, including the requirement to pass an extended re-test, stand as imposed. No new precedent was established, and the decision confirms the appropriateness of immediate custody in cases of serious repeat dangerous driving with poor compliance history and significant harm caused.